Ireland is an island nation and we all recognise the necessity of airport connectivity for our people and our economy. We already have good air links and they will continue. The question before us today is whether this legislation is a proportionate and appropriate way to balance our commitment to a connected island with our obligations to meet climate targets, protect local communities and care for our environment. My concern is that the Bill does not even make an attempt at balancing those competing needs. Instead, we have legislation that is one-sided in its focus, was constructed entirely with the desires of one set of stakeholders in mind, ignoring all others, and creates a set of real risks. The first and probably most glaring issue with the Bill is its direct effort to undermine the signature climate action legislation that is intended to keep Ireland on track to meet its climate obligations. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that Ireland is on track to significantly exceed its 2030 climate limits. With less than four years until we are supposed to reduce our 2018 emissions level by 50%, the Minister has already announced that we are far off track. Raising the passenger cap by just 8 million is likely to increase flight emissions by about 24%. Yet, the Minister has indicated in remarks he has made over the past year that he wants to double the numbers currently going through Dublin Airport. This is not about saying people should not fly. It is inevitable that people will fly out of and into Ireland. The question is whether it makes sense to have absolutely no upper limit on flight numbers going through Dublin Airport, with all the connected climate, environmental and community impacts of that approach. Just as significant is the message the Bill is sending on national climate commitments. In recent years, the Government has tried to undermine the climate Acts in numerous ways, particularly by way of legislative mechanisms. The Critical Infrastructure Bill, the Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill and this Bill each contain specific carve-outs to exempt the particular issue they deal with from scrutiny under section 15 of the 2015 Act. There is a sense almost of pre-emptive guilt on the part of the Government. The exemptions are an admission that it knows these legislative measures will not stand up to scrutiny from a climate perspective. It is seeking to forestall any opposition before it even starts. In essence, the Government is seeking to remove even any monitoring of some of the most carbon-intensive industries in our country at a time when we are significantly failing in our climate commitments. This is not an abstract issue. It exposes us to serious environmental, social and financial risks. We know there is a cost to non-compliance that is in a range somewhere between €8 billion and €26 billion. The removal of the obligation to adhere to section 15 of the climate action Act in relation to the passenger cap does not remove the Government's wider obligations under national law, international law or, indeed, under the European Convention on Human Rights. A legal opinion that was sought on the Bill found the lifting of the cap without introducing any other protections will expose the Government to a credible claim that it is in breach of Article 8 of the convention, which concerns the right to protection of private and family life, by failing to shield its citizens from the health impacts of the climate crisis. The same opinion also found the State had a procedural obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment, EIA, including of all CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from arriving and departing flights, or face significant risk of being challenged in the courts. The Bill will not make our climate commitments go away but it does leave significantly less room for manoeuvre for all sectors of our economy that are not insulated from scrutiny in the way the Bill insulates the aviation sector. In effect, one sector will have no upward cap on its emissions, while others will have to constrain themselves even further to allow that to happen. The legal opinion I mentioned makes that point quite starkly: "The disapplication of section 15 of the 2015 Act ... directly impacts Ireland's climate targets, as the significant emissions associated with the Cap Repeal will significantly constrain the margin of discretion of public authorities to make strategic decisions about future infrastructure." In short, this Bill is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Any disapplication will push climate costs away from aviation onto other sections of the economy and other sections of our society. Future infrastructure projects will be increasingly jeopardised and constrained to mitigate the consequences of what I would say is the reckless deregulation proposed in this legislation. The justification for all this that we have heard from the Minister this evening is that this Bill is critical for economic growth for our country, when no cost-benefit analysis has been carried out and we know current activity levels at the airport are incurring health-related costs, as outlined by other Deputies. A recent report by the UK Department for Transport on the economic implications from the expansion of Heathrow Airport found that the positive gains were outweighed by the social and environmental impact, which for that airport was estimated at between £58 billion and £82 billion. An independent cost-benefit analysis of the impact of this expansion is necessary, and that should have been conducted in advance of legislation being moved forward. Compounding the Government's unbalanced approach to the legislation is the attitude that has been taken to stakeholder engagement. In preparation for this debate, I asked the Minister via a parliamentary question to provide information about the companies and the lobbyists he had met to discuss this Bill. The result is quite stark. The Minister and the Taoiseach were very willing to engage with the airlines and their representatives and that is absolutely fine; they are lobbyists. However, no efforts were made to engage with the environmental organisations to get alternative perspectives on this particular area. I note in particular that a number of environmental organisations actively sought engagement with the Minister, including Children's Rights Over Flights and Friends of the Earth, and these meetings were not granted on this issue. This is not a balanced approach. It appears that in the drafting of this legislation that perspective about the environment was entirely absent from considerations. Deputy O'Brien is the Minister for Transport but he is also the Minister with responsibility for the environment and climate. Yet, he seems allergic to meeting organisations representing those particular interests. This lack of consultation feeds into the way in which this legislation is likely to impact on local communities. It does not appear the key concerns that local communities have voiced throughout this process and in detail at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, when we heard on this issue, have been taken into account in a meaningful way in this Bill. Since the north runway entered operation, local residents living close to Dublin Airport have already highlighted significant concerns around a range of issues, particularly the issue of noise. I know the Minister has constituents in his constituency who have undoubtedly brought this issue to his attention. Deputy Coppinger and I have heard from people in places like Hollystown, Hollywoodrath and Tyrrelstown, where the impact of noise is a regular issue and particularly the change in flight paths from what people were told to what actually was eventually permitted. Of course, all of this is taking place with the current restriction and current cap in place. I understand the Minister met residents of St. Margaret's and The Ward last month. I think they provided the Minister with an economic analysis they have done of the costs to health, particularly from noise generated from the airport. Local residents are already being severely impacted by the current levels of activity at Dublin Airport but, again, instead of engaging meaningfully with those concerns, this proposal is to introduce potentially limitless increases in the number of flights on top of the existing problematic patterns. I know from FOI requests that there has been more correspondence between the Minister and Airlines for America than with local groups. In advertising this Bill on social media over the last week, the Minister said that people's concerns would be addressed in a substantive way that is respectful of local communities. I do not believe this adds up when I look at this draft right now. The Bill does not in any way anticipate an assessment-of-noise impact and it again pushes responsibility for noise mitigation back onto the planning authority. The need for air connectivity in an island nation like Ireland is unavoidable. Again, nobody disputes that. What is of concern here is the ill-considered way in which this legislation has been brought forward, without any recognition of a balancing or any recognition that other considerations need to be taken account of in bringing a change like this forward. The hallmark of good legislation is a balanced approach between competing needs within our society. This legislation makes no efforts to do that. It is single-minded in its approach and offers no idea as to what a proportional approach to passenger numbers at Dublin Airport might look like. To achieve this, it undermines the climate action Act and ignores those key concerns of local communities that have been voiced to us all on many occasions. This is a reflection of the way that the legislation was prepared in close consultation with the aviation industry but with the concerns of those key environmental groups entirely excluded. Ultimately, it will be ordinary people who bear the consequences of this approach in the costs of complying with missed climate targets and in the impacts from increased noise for those living in the vicinity of the airport. Again, and it is unfortunate to say, the approach being adopted to this legislation is more and more replicated across the Government's approach to all issues to do with climate and the environment.

Sentiment score: 0.00